Transborder News: On April 2, 2025, Associate Professor Dr. Narumon Thabchumphon, a lecturer from the Faculty of Political Science at Chulalongkorn University, commented on the Thai government’s decision to invite Senior General Min Aung Hlaing to the upcoming BIMSTEC (Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation) Summit, which will be held in Bangkok from April 3–4.
Dr. Narumon stated that the Thai government appears to be engaging with the Myanmar military regime using a traditional diplomatic approach, assuming that engaging with Myanmar’s official government is the only option. She noted that Thailand does not have significant leverage over Myanmar, and while many do not agree with this approach, the Thai government seems to believe otherwise. She assessed that the Thai government wants to show that it has the capacity to engage with Myanmar. Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, who also chairs ASEAN, has tried multiple times but has yet to make progress even after four months. Thailand might feel the need to take a role in negotiations.
At the same time, after cracking down on call center gangs along the Thai-Myanmar border, the Thai government may have reassessed its reliance on ethnic armed groups. It might believe that direct engagement with Myanmar’s military could provide more leverage. However, this comes at a high cost to democracy and human rights. Thailand has already faced international criticism in the past, such as for deporting Uyghurs. While negotiations with China and Myanmar are different, the government seems to prioritize economic benefits above all else.
She further added that Thailand appears to be applying a realist approach to politics, particularly regarding its natural gas contracts with Myanmar, which have three years remaining. Given Thailand’s current economic crisis, the government may feel compelled to negotiate with Myanmar on issues such as migrant labor. The Myanmar military government has stopped sending MOU-based workers to Thailand for some time, and border closures have also impacted economic activity. Thailand is focusing on economic liberalization rather than democracy. Many Thais disagree with this approach, but public opposition has been relatively muted. However, for Myanmar citizens fleeing war, witnessing Thailand’s approach must be deeply disheartening.
Dr. Narumon warned that the potential consequences might not be worth it, but the Thai government, struggling with economic issues, is attempting to play a dual political role. The question is whether this will yield results. Thailand is not a major power. The government may see itself as the only country, apart from China, that can engage with Myanmar’s military leadership. But is it worth the backlash from ASEAN, the United States, Europe, and the international community? Even if the Thai government is willing to endure criticism, it must carefully assess what Thailand truly gains from this. When meeting Min Aung Hlaing, what will Thailand discuss? Will Myanmar’s military agree to a ceasefire or release political prisoners like Aung San Suu Kyi? Such things have happened in history, like during the Khmer Rouge era. However, it is clear that the Thai government prioritizes economic interests over humanitarian and democratic concerns, despite being an elected government. Is this gamble worth it? Even the military-led Prayut government did not take such a bold step.
She further emphasized that the Thai government is not prioritizing democracy but is instead focused on economic and energy interests. Thai security agencies also do not regard ethnic armed groups as being as powerful as the Myanmar military, as demonstrated by recent crackdowns on crime and call center gangs along the border. The decision to invite Min Aung Hlaing to Thailand is truly a “deal with the devil.” It sends a message that only Thailand can negotiate with Myanmar. But is this gamble too risky? Even from a purely national interest perspective, without considering compassion, human rights, or humanitarian concerns, we must ask whether this is truly beneficial.
Former Thai Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya also strongly criticized the Thai government’s decision. He stated that Min Aung Hlaing is a leader rejected by the international community. His government is sanctioned globally. Even within ASEAN, it was agreed that Myanmar’s military leadership should not participate in meetings. Only civilian representatives were permitted. By inviting Min Aung Hlaing, Thailand has violated ASEAN’s consensus and international norms. This decision contradicts democratic values and disregards the sentiments of the Myanmar people who support democracy. He also pointed out that Myanmar is experiencing a worsening civil war, where the military is continuously losing ground to resistance forces. Many civilians have been displaced and lack basic necessities. Even after the recent devastating earthquake, Myanmar’s military continued bombing its own people. By inviting Min Aung Hlaing, Thailand is effectively inviting a world-renowned war criminal to the table. The problem is not just with Myanmar’s military leader, but with the Thai government that extended the invitation.
When asked whether BIMSTEC rules allow Thailand to invite Min Aung Hlaing, Kasit responded that this argument is only half-valid. As an ASEAN member and a member of the UN Human Rights Council, Thailand should not engage with Min Aung Hlaing. BIMSTEC should also consider the sentiments of the Myanmar people. As long as Thailand remains a member of the UN, ASEAN, and the Human Rights Council, it should not welcome Min Aung Hlaing—a man responsible for killing civilians, jailing political opponents, and facing widespread opposition from his own people. This move damages Thailand’s reputation by associating it with a dictatorship and a war criminal. Moreover, it divides Thai society. The government must reconsider whether this decision truly benefits the country.
Surach Kiri, a leader of the Bright Future Network representing Myanmar migrant workers in Thailand, also expressed disappointment. He stated that they are deeply disheartened that the Thai government is welcoming Min Aung Hlaing, who is responsible for severe human rights violations in Myanmar. Allowing him to visit Thailand effectively supports Myanmar’s military dictatorship. This makes Myanmar migrants living in Thailand feel unsafe and uneasy. Min Aung Hlaing has killed countless civilians. Even after the earthquake, Myanmar’s military continued its airstrikes. By allowing him into the country, the Thai government is signaling its support for these atrocities. As a Myanmar migrant working in Thailand, Surach stressed that the government’s decision disregards the feelings of the Myanmar people, who overwhelmingly despise Min Aung Hlaing.
“It feels as though the Thai government is turning a blind eye to the suffering of Myanmar people. We have been fighting for justice and democracy, yet Thailand is choosing to side with the military regime,” he said.
Earlier, during a press briefing on the upcoming 6th BIMSTEC Summit, Nikorndej Pholangkool, Director-General of the Department of Information and Spokesperson for the Thai Ministry of Foreign Affairs, confirmed that Min Aung Hlaing would attend but did not provide details on his schedule. When asked whether Thailand’s Prime Minister would hold bilateral talks with Myanmar’s leader, the spokesperson confirmed that discussions with various leaders would take place but did not specify whether Min Aung Hlaing would be among them.
See original Thai article, https://transbordernews.in.th/home/?p=41944
Photo : The Global New Light Of Myanmar
